Home | Community | Message Board


DaVinci Vaporizer
Please support our sponsors.

Community >> The Pub

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Invisiblepwnasaurus
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 11,643
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16186829 - 05/05/12 06:52 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

You're the one making the argument, the onus is on you to show a reason why it should be defined differently.  Put up a reasonable argument that is internally logically consistent and I'd be more than happy to tear it apart.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheMule73
Stranger
Male
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 1,019
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16186833 - 05/05/12 06:53 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

From the OP, I had asked, why does being at rest have to be synonymous with traveling 0 m/s? Because of the current definitions I know, but they just didnt seem right to me. Thats all.

Okay cool, I will try to in a little, gonna eat now.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepwnasaurus
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 11,643
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16186853 - 05/05/12 06:56 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

TheMule73 said:
From the OP, I had asked, why does being at rest have to be synonymous with traveling 0 m/s? Because of the current definitions I know, but they just didnt seem right to me. Thats all.

Okay cool, I will try to in a little, gonna eat now.



I don't even understand what you're trying to say.  When you say at rest, you immediately are referring to an implied observer.  If an object is not moving relative to that observer, it is said to have a relative speed of 0 m/s.

For all your basic physics problems, when 0 m/s is used, it is implied that 0 m/s RELATIVE TO THE EARTH.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheMule73
Stranger
Male
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 1,019
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: pwnasaurus]
    #16187179 - 05/05/12 08:08 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Try to read all of it, it jumps around and probably doesnt make too much sense, but fuck it.

If something was always in your hand, you said it would infact BE your hand? Well I am trying to get at the same type of thinking, just applying it to states of motion. The object in your hand, would infact be your hand because that would be the way that it has always been. There has never been a prior time in which the object wasn't in your hand. It being there, is your most natural state.

The first thing that comes to mind when we say “at rest” is what? To be viewed as stationary relative to some frame of reference. What does it mean to be stationary? To not be in motion or to be still. What does it mean to be in motion? The act of changing position or place with respect to time. What does it mean to be still? To be in a state or position, relative to some frame of reference, in which it is impossible to move any slower, no motion is occurring.
This is how we think of things.

Well, light is in a position where it can not move any slower.

An objects slowest possible state of motion is kind of like its most natural state. For us, and for most things, traveling at 0 m/s is the slowest you can travel, for infact you actually aren't even traveling. According to standard defintions you are at rest at this point. So for most objects, traveling 0 m/s is synonymous wiht being at rest, because it is at that point that you are traveling in your slowest possible state of motion. But light, travels at C while being in its postion of slowest movement.

If an object is not moving relative to an observer, it has a relative speed of 0 m/s and is at "rest." If an object is moving relative to every observer at C, then it is said to be in motion relative to every observer.

But why are we assigining 0 m/s as being at rest? Literally, think of why we defined it that way? Of course, it just made the most sense but why? I think whether we realized it or not, we related an object going 0 m/s to a time when it wasn't. We saw that objects in this universe speed up and slow down relative to whomever. We realized that relative to X, when an object such as cat is traveling a few meters/second, it must be in motion relative to X because it is covering a set distance in a certain amount of time. Moving a distance/time, we saw, is not always the same. At times we speed up, slow down, or stay still. We weren't used to something always staying the same. Traveling more then 0 m/s became assigned to motion becasue we knew that at times, an object HAD traveled 0 m/s. And 0 m/s, we realized is the slowest anything can go, so it is every object's slowest state of motion. But this was before we knew a lot about light.

There needs to be a starting point of reference of an object to compare the question in time too. Pretend there is only a single ball and man in the universe. Thats all there has been since existence. The man can float around in space and speed up and slow down (somehow) and change his speed. yet, all he has ever know the ball to travel at, was 10 m/s. Traveling at 10 m/s would just be a natural thing for the ball to do, the man wouldn't think its in motion like how he is in motion when he moves, because the ball has never done anything BUT go 10 m/s. Sure the ball moves, but not how he moves. It never changes speed. He would look at it as being still, because he cant even fathom an idea of it doing something else. But say a woman popped out of nowhere, and asked is the ball in motion? To me at least, it would seem as if the man would say, "well its moving, but its not in motion, becuase I've never seen it be slower or faster. This is just its purest form. It probably can't even go at a different speed, so no its not in motion"

But what if both the man and ball have always existed and always traveled at 10 m/s. Physically cant do anything else. The man would think he isn’t In motion, sure hes traveling, but hes not in motion, because he doesn’t know of a time when he wasn’t moving 10 m/s. Hell he doesn’t know any objects can go slower.

There needs to be a starting reference point for an observer to compare an object's motion to Because without doing so what essentially is happening is that we are assuming what the starting reference point of an object is. It is like walking into a room you have never been in before and stating “This room is slightly dark; therefore the lights have been dimmed.” It is assumed that the starting reference point of a light is well its maximum brightness, however, without being supplied the starting brightness of the lights one can not say the lights have been dimmed because there is no prior time in which to compare the dimness of the lights to. To say they have been dimmed just may not be true.

For every object, you need to be able to apply a concept of rest and motion to it. You can’t just determine if something is In motion without knowing what its rest state it.



In the world we live in, we became obsorbed by evertyhing else and saw how motion and the objects in our surroundings works. Objects have a base starting point, which we call at rest. We assigned 0 m/s with this starting point because thats what we observed. But as time wen't on we expanded knowledge to space, but still kept these same definitions.


So with any object, to determine if motion is occurring, you need to judge it from a particular frame of reference. And from that same frame of reference, you need to  take a look at a starting point of reference of the object and compare the time in question with that moment. If there exists at least one single moment from an object’s existence where it traveled a different distance/time then compared to the time in question (the moment you are trying to determine if an object is in motion) then sure it is in motion because relative to the frame of reference we picked out, we have found a starting point where the object changed its speed.

You can’t do this with light, though. For a photons existence, there is no single moment in time to use as a starting reference point to compare the current time to.

Its hard to think of it like this, when we are so accustomed to our way of thinking about rest and motion, but hey its different. Also, I haven’t really thought about this in a few months and this isn’t described nearly as well as I once had it, but I lost that and am typing this out fast out of memory. I also don’t think this will become factual science or anything like that so go easy. Just ideas that I thought were really cool, as it challenges the core of basic physics. What motion is. If you think its stupid, that’s fine.


Edited by TheMule73 (05/05/12 08:09 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
Fūrinkazan
Male

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 16,406
Loc: Soviet Canuckistan Flag
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16187237 - 05/05/12 08:17 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Tl;DR :loldongs:


--------------------

The void is the backdrop that illumimates existence


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheMule73
Stranger
Male
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 1,019
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Bodhi of Ankou]
    #16187255 - 05/05/12 08:20 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Tl;DR- I think I had manic episode in which I studied physics shit nonstop for a few months and came up with crazy ideas which I fully beleived. Got back to normal, remembered about them, wanted to see how crazy I was.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejw2234
Astral Traveler
Male


Registered: 08/18/09
Posts: 1,231
Loc: Bay Area Flag
Last seen: 2 months, 2 days
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: ninja cat 09]
    #16187466 - 05/05/12 09:12 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

ninja cat 09 said:
I imagine it would only be confusing in physics if you were to use those terms. IMHO a particle/object/thingamabob is in rest when it occupies the same place in space, in other words, at 0 m/s. Therefore light cannot be at rest since even if it's at it's lowest possible velocity it is still changing place.




Thats the thing though! NOTHING is ever at rest as far as I see it. The definition of "at rest" only goes so far. An object at rest is stable and not moving in relation to another point of reference, and while from our eyesight this appears to be the case, the "object", or rather the clump of particles connected to eachother via an electromagnetic connection, is vibrating indefinitely and is sitting atop another such thing that isn't solid at all. And now we know that there is a certain percentage that the particles close to touching the object the particles are resting on top of have crossed the boundary and have entered the space of the other object. My point is that nothing can ever be at rest in reality, its only at rest if we choose to see it that way.
And yes perception is a choice, we choose to see things the way we choose to see them. I guess the reason we can't choose to change our perception on a whim is for one we don't NEED to (if we needed to we would), and our habits have a certain gravitational pull, that, especially with perception, is hard as hell to break through to see the other side. Or easy if you know how, and sometimes it can be as simple as taking a psychedelic substance or two to realize how really less than solid things actually are. Things are not things as we know it, thats for sure. We need to first understand this to the core and then evolve our linguistic capacities, methinks. We will.


--------------------
               
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

there is nothing to fear with this chemical besides astonishing realization that everything IS indeed 1 entity

Questions


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCj-B
All the same...I saw it first.
Male


Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 2,727
Loc: Illinois
Last seen: 13 hours, 50 minutes
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: jw2234]
    #16188008 - 05/05/12 11:44 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

I read about a page and half of this earlier and all I could think of was  :goodnews: and how his spaceship works.


--------------------
Men are born for games. Nothing else. Every child knows that play is nobler than work. He knows too that the worth or merit of a game is not inherent in the game itself but rather in the value of that which is put at hazard. Games of chance require a wager to have meaning at all. Games of sport involve the skill and strength of the opponents and the humiliation of defeat and the pride of victory are in themselves sufficient stake because they inhere in the worth of the principals and define them. But trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player, all. - The Judge



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineShh
Stranger
Male

Registered: 07/20/11
Posts: 127
Last seen: 11 months, 19 days
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Cj-B] * 1
    #16188093 - 05/06/12 12:06 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

From a quantum mechanics point of view, everything (as in, the sub-atomic particles in every atom) are constantly moving, and only exist in a 'specific' spot when we look at it. I think they coined 'at rest' to mean something akin to 'doing nothing observably measurable or important'?
Also, "Light is at a point that it cannot move any slower" I believe is infactual. We only see a small amount of the spectrum of light. We cannot see infrared light for example, but it exists and we interact with it as heat. So really, light moves at different speeds and produces different results depending on how fast it's wavelength and other factors determine (right? someone correct me here?). So really, light can and does move slower than we can actually see, and it becomes other things to us like heat or whatever.
Just some thoughts of the top of my head. I'd have to remember a bunch of physics mumbo-jumbo to really make any better contribution, and I'm just not that involved in anything tonight :rolleyes:
Cool thread. I enjoyed reading this.


--------------------
~Please note! All posts made by this 'Shh' 'person' are OBVIOUSLY fictional. I would not be surprised if it is a robot/computer of some kind (I mean really, have ya read it's posts?)~
                                                                  -Concerned Random 'Net Surfer

“Our world is in crisis because of the absence of consciousness. And so to whatever degree any one of us can bring back a small piece of the picture and contribute it to the building of the new paradigm, then we participate in the redemption of the human spirit, and that after all is what it's really all about.”

Hello, friend! Isn't this a grand adventure?! But lets change up a few things for everyone's benefit, yes? If not us, who? If not now, when?
:levitate:


Edited by Shh (05/06/12 12:14 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDeathSpider
the living dead girl
Female

Registered: 02/29/12
Posts: 5,007
Loc: In the state of Denial
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: Shh]
    #16188100 - 05/06/12 12:08 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Shh said:
From a quantum mechanics point of view, everything (as in, the sub-atomic particles in every atom) are constantly moving, and only exist in a 'specific' spot when we look at it. So one could argue that nothing anywhere in physical reality that we observe is actually 'at rest'?





Exactly


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleBodhi of Ankou
Fūrinkazan
Male

Registered: 06/02/09
Posts: 16,406
Loc: Soviet Canuckistan Flag
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: DeathSpider]
    #16188136 - 05/06/12 12:22 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120503194223.htm

Quote:

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, light traveling in a vacuum is the universal speed limit. No information can travel faster than light.
But there's kind of a loophole. A short burst of light arrives as a sort of (usually) symmetric curve like a bell curve in statistics. The leading edge of that curve can't exceed the speed of light, but the main hump, the peak of the pulse, can be skewed forward or backward, arriving sooner or later than it normally would.




--------------------

The void is the backdrop that illumimates existence


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonaldFuckingPaul
Our Dear Leader
Male User Gallery


Registered: 10/31/07
Posts: 13,617
Loc: Straight Outta Compton Flag
Last seen: 14 days, 9 hours
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16188389 - 05/06/12 01:24 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

TheMule73 said:
Tl;DR- I think I had manic episode in which I studied physics shit nonstop for a few months and came up with crazy ideas which I fully beleived. Got back to normal, remembered about them, wanted to see how crazy I was.



:lol:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLloydChristmas
getting lost on purpose
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/06
Posts: 4,242
Loc: atx Flag
Last seen: 6 hours, 27 minutes
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16188734 - 05/06/12 03:35 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

The speed of light in a vacuum is c, such as in space.  Light is refracted and slowed down when traversing through a medium, such as water or glass.  Our atmosphere actually minutely slows down light.

Absolute rest can only happen at absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin) and supposedly is impossible to obtain.


And yes, light absolutely is in motion.  Doesn't matter from what reference point. 

Proxima Centauri, our closest star besides the sun, is ~4.36 light years away.  That means that when you look up and see it, you are actually seeing light that was emitted ~4.36 years ago.  How is that not movement?

Your logic I think is that all light that ever was or ever will be exists right now, and that is not the case.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLloydChristmas
getting lost on purpose
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/06
Posts: 4,242
Loc: atx Flag
Last seen: 6 hours, 27 minutes
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: LloydChristmas]
    #16188743 - 05/06/12 03:42 AM (1 year, 11 months ago)

And I meant to add that v = c/n.  Where the velocity of light is the speed of light in a vacuum divided by the refractive index of whatever material it is passing through. 

Example: The velocity of light shining through a diamond is 299,792,458 m/s / 2.42= 123,881,181 m/s.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheMule73
Stranger
Male
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 1,019
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: LloydChristmas]
    #16189799 - 05/06/12 12:09 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

LloydChristmas said:

Proxima Centauri, our closest star besides the sun, is ~4.36 light years away.  That means that when you look up and see it, you are actually seeing light that was emitted ~4.36 years ago.  How is that not movement?






If you meant how is that not motion, its because that wasn't how I was defining motion. Of course, its movement.

Regardless, thanks for the responses. :thumbup:


Edited by TheMule73 (05/06/12 12:11 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblepwnasaurus
Stranger
Male User Gallery


Registered: 07/16/08
Posts: 11,643
Loc: Canada Flag
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16189857 - 05/06/12 12:27 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Have you accepted that you're wrong yet?  You keep declining to accept that motion is something relative to a reference object.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTheMule73
Stranger
Male
Registered: 08/26/11
Posts: 1,019
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: pwnasaurus]
    #16189896 - 05/06/12 12:42 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Quote:

pwnasaurus said:
Have you accepted that you're wrong yet?  You keep declining to accept that motion is something relative to a reference object.




No, thats been accepted since the beginning.

People have been missing out on my point. The last person I quoted still didn't realize that I was trying to say movement wasn't equal to motion.

And of course, I'm wrong. I'm blatantly going against basic definitions,  I know that. Hence, the creation of the thread and asking of the question, why are these terms defined the way they are?


Edited by TheMule73 (05/06/12 12:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLloydChristmas
getting lost on purpose
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/06
Posts: 4,242
Loc: atx Flag
Last seen: 6 hours, 27 minutes
Re: Maybe I was too high but..(physics related) [Re: TheMule73]
    #16190190 - 05/06/12 02:17 PM (1 year, 11 months ago)

Movement and motion are synonyms for the same thing. Admitting that what I said is movement not motion defies logic.

:whippedcreamhead:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Community >> The Pub

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Freaky pic - quantum physics related
( 1 2 3 all )
staedtler 1,131 46 11/24/08 01:32 AM
by DragonChaser
* PopSci: For the First Time, Electrons are Observed Splitting into Smaller Quasi-Particles
Shill
349 15 04/26/12 10:28 PM
by Patlal
* Physics vs Psychology
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Envix 1,046 63 05/31/10 09:01 PM
by Hendostan
* How do you store maps of physical space?
( 1 2 all )
teamkiller 414 20 09/01/11 04:42 PM
by Bodhi of Ankou
* I love conceptual physics
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
BlindSophist 1,633 111 12/14/10 12:13 AM
by Bambi
* Occupy Movements transitioning into Armed Revolutions.
( 1 2 3 4 all )
AbstraKt_I_Am 1,452 74 03/13/12 02:16 AM
by AbstraKt_I_Am
* anyone here actually understand Quantum Physics?
( 1 2 3 4 all )
realfuzzhead 1,212 64 05/19/11 08:05 AM
by Fungal-one
* The official physics thread
( 1 2 all )
DuNeRaVeR 766 30 02/03/11 09:51 PM
by Silversoul

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator:
671 topic views. 26 members, 267 guests and 15 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2014 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.037 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 18 queries.